AMIT RAHI vs. JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY

65.
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 7018/2011

% Judgment dated 13.08.2012

AMIT RAHI ..... Petitioner
Through : Ms.Neelam Sharma and Mr.Rajat
Sharma, Advs.

versus

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY
THROUGH ITS VICE CHANCELLOR AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.S.C. Dhanda, Ms.Sagari Dhanda and
Mr.P.K. Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J ( ORAL )

1. Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner seeking a direction to
respondent to grant direct admission to the petitioner in its Ph.D
(Biotechnology) course for which he has been selected vide letter
th
no.Admissions/13(ii)/2011-12 dated 29 July, 2011. It is further prayed
that a direction may also be issued to the respondent University to provide
the marks (subject wise) secured by the petitioner in M.Sc.

2. As per the petition, the petitioner completed his M.Sc in Biotechnology
from Jawahar Lal Nehru University, respondent no.1, in the year 2008.
The petitioner secured 5.59 points as cumulative grade point average out
of maximum of 9 points on the grading scale. On completion of his M.Sc
the petitioner was appointed as Junior Research Fellow in the Project
titled as “Programme Cell ….. Diseases” on 15.5.2007, which was further
W.P.(C) 7018/2011 Page 1 of 8



extended till the completion of the project. In the year 2008, petitioner
was again appointed as Junior Research Fellow in another Project titled as
„Creation …. Bacillus Anthraces‟ for a period of one year w.e.f.
10.11.2008 till 9.11.2009, which was further extended till 31.1.2010.
Thereafter in the year 2010 the petitioner was appointed as Senior
Research Fellow in the project titled as „Rabies DNA …… Studies.
3. In February, 2011, respondent no.1 invited applications for direct
admission to its Ph.D programme in Biotechnology. On 16.3.2011, the
petitioner applied for direct admission to the Ph.D. programme in
Biotechnology in respondent no.1 University. The petitioner received a
call letter from respondent no.1 on 21.6.2011, inviting him to appear for
Viva voce on 8.7.2011, on which date the petitioner appeared along with
his mark sheets and certificates. On 8.7.2011 petitioner appeared in the
viva voce conducted in the office of the SBT with his mark sheets and
certificates. On 29.7.2011 the petitioner received a letter from respondent
no.1 whereby he was informed that he has been selected for the direct
admission programme to Ph.D (Biotechnology) programme, which was to
commence from 10.8.2011 till 16.8.2011. The respondent no.1 selected
only two candidates. Although the petitioner appeared before the
University along with all the original documents, he was denied direct
admission on the ground that he did not hold the essential qualification of
6 points on a 10-point scale in M.Sc and, thus, he was not eligible for
direct admission to Ph.D Programme.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has secured
5.59 points in M.Sc and maximum 9 points can be awarded to any student
as per the grading system of respondent no.1. Counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon Clause (C) (I) (b) eligibility criteria for direct admission to
its Ph.D programme, which reads as under:
W.P.(C) 7018/2011 Page 2 of 8



“(C) Eligibility for admission
(i) Direct Admission to Ph.D Programme

(b) at least 2 years research experience in reputed institutions
with research publication(s) comparable to M.Phil. standard. In
addition, they should have obtained Master‟s Degree with FGPA of
6.00 in the 10 point scale/ comparable standard or equivalent
percentage.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that denial of admission to the
petitioner is not justified, it is arbitrary and in gross violation of the
University rules as perusal of para (b) of the eligibility for direct
admission to Ph.D programme, as provided in the prospectus of
respondent no.1, is clear that the candidate should have obtained a
Master‟s Degree with FGPA of 6 in the 10-point scale/comparable
standard or equivalent percentage. Counsel further contends that the
petitioner was to secure at least 6 points in the scale of 10 at post
graduation or comparable standard or equivalent percentage. Counsel next
contends that 6 points on the scale of 10 is equivalent to 60% and, thus, in
order to get admission the petitioner should have secured 60% at the post
graduation level or on comparable scale, out of maximum 9 points he
should have scored 5.40 which is again equivalent to 60%. Counsel
contends that the petitioner has secured 5.59 points, out of maximum of
9.00 points, on the grading scale, which makes 62% meaning thereby that
he possesses more than 60% which is required for direct admission to
Ph.D. Counsel also contends that the petitioner meets all other criteria as
well.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to
the response of the respondent to a query raised under the Right to
Information Act, according to which, in order to seek direct admission to
Ph.D programme a candidate, who has passed from a University, which
W.P.(C) 7018/2011 Page 3 of 8



does not follow a 10-point scale, as required by JNU, would be considered
for admission in case the candidate secures 55% marks in his Master‟s
programme. It was further clarified that the JNU does not provide any
conversion formula for conversion of grades awarded by into percentage.
Counsel further submits that petitioner cannot be discriminated against as
the petitioner has secured more than 55% marks.
7. Mr.S.C. Dhanda, learned counsel for the respondent, has opposed the
present petition and has relied upon Explanation to paragraph 6.1 (iv) of
the Academic Ordinance 13 of the University, which deals with admission
to Ph.D course. Explanation to paragraph 6.1 (iv) of this Ordinance reads
as under:
“Candidate should have at least 2 years research experience in a
reputed institutions with research publication(s) comparable to
M.Phil standard. In addition they should have obtained Master‟s
degree with FGPA of 6.00 in the 10 point scale/comparable
standard or equivalent percentage.”

8. Mr.Dhanda, learned counsel for the respondent, submits that reading of
the above provision would show that a candidate must fulfill two basic
requirements i.e. (i) two years research equivalent to M.Phil standard and
(ii) have passed Master‟s Degree with FGPA of 6 in the 10-point
scale/comparable standard or equivalent percentage. Mr.Dhanda further
submits that the petitioner has secured only 5.59, thus, making him
ineligible for grant of admission in the University. Mr.Dhanda further
contends that as per the minimum requirement for admission to direct
Ph.D course, the petitioner must have a Cumulative Grade Point Average
(CGPA) of 6.00, which the petitioner does not fulfill and thus he is not
eligible for a direction admission.
9. Mr.Dhanda has placed reliance on page 35 of the prospectus, which is
published by the respondent University. Counsel has also drawn the
W.P.(C) 7018/2011 Page 4 of 8



attention of the Court to internal cover of the prospectus, which reads as
under:
“You fulfill the eligibility requirements as prescribed by the
University for the field(s) of study you are applying for. Please note
that permission to appear in the entrance examination is subject to
your fulfilling minimum eligibility requirements prescribed for
admission to the concerned programmes of study and as notified in
the prospectus. You may therefore appear in the entrance
examination only if you fulfill the eligibility requirements for the
programmes for which you are admission. Despite this caution, in
case you do not meet the minimum eligibility criteria prescribed for
the concerned programmes and appear in the entrance examination,
you will do so at your own risk and cost, and if at any stage, it is
found that you do not fulfill the minimum eligibility requirements,
the admission, if granted to you, shall be cancelled ipso facto.

This notice makes it clear that grant of admission will not confer
any right to a candidate if he does not fulfill the minimum
eligibility requirements.”

10. Mr.Dhanda submits that it is incorrect to suggest that the petitioner has
been graded under a scale of 9 points. Mr.Dhanda further submits that as
per paragraph 8.4 of Academic Ordinance 15, a student shall be graded in
each course on a 10-point scale. Counsel contends that as per the
prospectus all courses in the respondent University are graded as per this
scale. Mr.Dhanda next contends that it is not possible to check the
eligibility requirement initially as large numbers of candidate apply and it
is only when the candidates come for registration and payment of fees the
checking is done. Mr.Dhanda has relied upon University Ordinance 6.3,
according to which, a student is to be graded in each course on a 10-point
scale.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has
incorrectly interpreted Ordinance 6.3 as the grading commences from 0-9,
which is a 10-point scale, and it is not necessary that the grading had to be
W.P.(C) 7018/2011 Page 5 of 8



from 1-10. Counsel further submits that based on the grading of 0.9 the
petitioner would have qualified in case he had secured FGPA of 6.
12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings
as also the University Ordinance and the prospectus. The University
Ordinance as also the prospectus lay down the criteria, which has been
fixed for admission to a student. While the eligibility criteria as laid down
by the Ordinance has been reproduced above, it would be useful to
reproduce 6.3 of University Ordinance as also note 1 and 2, which read as
under:
“6.3 A student shall be graded in each course on a ten point scale,
that is:

1. There shall be no rounding off of SGPA/CGPA/FGPA


2. The SGPA/CGPA/FGPA obtained by a student is out of a maximum
possible 9 points.

(Emphasis Supplied)”

13. The same criteria have been laid down in the prospectus.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is
eligible for direct admission to Ph.D programme in the Biotechnology as
W.P.(C) 7018/2011 Page 6 of 8



he has secured 5.59 points out of a maximum of 9-points, whereas the
petitioner is to be graded as per the University Rules. Para (b) of the
Eligibility for Direct Admission to Ph.D programme, as provided in the
Prospectus.
15. The main thrust of arguments of Ms.Sharma, learned counsel for the
petitioner, is that the petitioner was to secure at least 6 points in the scale
of 10 and 6 points in the scale of 10 is equivalent to 60% and since the
case of the petitioner is being considered on a comparable scale out of
maximum 9 points the petitioner should have scored minimum 5.40,
which would be equivalent to 60% while the petitioner has scored 5.59.
This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in my view cannot
be accepted. Clause 6.3 of the University Ordinance and Note nos.1 and 2,
which have been reproduced above, would show that no rounding off is
permitted and further the petitioner cannot derive any benefit on the
petitioner being graded out of 9, as grading from 1 to 10 would commence
from 1 and grading of 9 points has been shown to commence from zero.
Petitioner cannot derive any advantage from the fact that the grading has
been done out of 9 points as grade 1 to 10 is equivalent to grade from 0-9.
Thus it cannot be said that on a scale of 9, petitioner requires 5.40 which
would amount to 60% or 6 points out of 10. Since the petitioner has 5.59
points and rounding off is not permitted, the petitioner does not meet the
eligibility criteria as set out in the prospectus and the University
Ordinance.
16. In the case of Varun Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India & ors. , reported
at 179 (2011) DLT 24, a Division Bench of this court has held that the
terms of prospectus are binding and are strictly construed. It would be
useful to reproduce para 14:
“14. Presently we shall refer to certain authorities in the field that
W.P.(C) 7018/2011 Page 7 of 8



have dealt with sanctity of a prospectus or brochure and the legal
impact when it is changed in the midstream. In Dr.M. Vannila v.
Tamil Nadu Public Services Commission, 2008 (3) CTC 69, a
Division Bench of the High Court of Madras has opined thus:

19.The principle that the prospectus is binding on all pesons
concerned has been laid by the Supreme Court in Punjab
Engineering College, Chandigarh v. Sanjay Gulati, AIR 1983
SC 580. Following the same, a Divison Bench of this Court
has also observed in Rathnaswamy, Dr. A. v. Director of
Medical Education (1986 WLR 207) that the rules and norms
of the prospectus are to be strictly and solemnly adhered to.
The same view is also taken by another Division Bench of
this Court in Nithiyan P. and S.P. Prasanna v. State of Tamil
Nadu (1994 WLR 624). The same principle is reiterated in
the case of Dr.M. Ashiq Nihmathullah v. The Government of
Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in 2005 WLR 697. It is clear
that the prospectus is a piece of information and it is binding
on the candidates as well as on the State including the
machinery appointed by it for identifying the candidates for
selection and admission.”

17. The petitioner does not meet the eligibility criteria as the petitioner has
not secured 6 points on the scale of 0-9 and, thus, no relief can be granted
to the petitioner.
18. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
CM 9024/2012.
19. Application stands dismissed in view of the order passed in the writ
petition.


G.S.SISTANI, J
AUGUST 13, 2012
msr

W.P.(C) 7018/2011 Page 8 of 8